RESPONSE OF PIGEONPEA (Cajanus cajan L. Millsp.) GENOTYPES UNDER WATER LOGGING STRESS

AARZOO QAMAR¹, VIJAY PANDURANGAM², NARSI RAM JAT³*
¹National Institute of Plant Genome Research, New Delhi, Delhi 110067
²Department of Plant Physiology, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, 221005
³Department of Plant Physiology, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, 221005
* Corresponding Author : narsiramjat2015@gmail.com

Received : 07-04-2017     Accepted : 07-05-2017     Published : 30-05-2017
Volume : 9     Issue : 25       Pages : 4308 - 4310
Int J Agr Sci 9.25 (2017):4308-4310

Keywords : Pigeonpea, Water logging and Anti-oxidative Mechanism
Academic Editor : Surendra Kumar Meena
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : We extend our sincere thanks to Dr. M.N. Singh, Department of genetics and Plant Breeding, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, 221005 for providing seed material and to ICAR (Indian Council of Agricultural Research) for providing Junior Research Fellowship for master’s programme and to Mr. Narsi Ram Jat and Ms Bhawana for help and support during research programme
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

Water logging stress was imposed on two pigeonpea genotypes viz., ICPL-84023 and DA-11. Thirty days old pot grown plants were subjected to water logging continuously for 4 and 6 days in water filled containers and water was maintained 4-5 cm above the surface of soil. Significant genotypic differences were observed with respect to biochemical changes in leaves and roots. Chlorophyll content was found more in ICPL-84023 genotype as compared to DA-11 in control condition. After imposition of water logging stress ICPL-184023 genotype performed better as compared to DA-11 genotype. ICPL-84023 genotype showed less chlorophyll reduction, increased activity of antioxidant enzymes peroxidase, catalase, superoxide dismutase and ascorbate peroxidase, and less H2O2, MDA content as well as less cell membrane leakage. In this study DA-11 was observed as susceptible and ICPL-184023 as tolerant genotype under water logging stress.

1. Sultana R. (2010) SATrends, 102.
2. Aggarwal P.K., Kalra N., Chander S. and Pathak H. (2006) Agricultural Systems, 89, 1–25.
3. Armstrong W. and Drew M.C. (2002) Plant Roots: The hidden haif, 3rd edn. New York; Marcel Dekker. 729-761.
4. Bailey-Serres J. and Voesenek L.A.C.J. (2008) Annual Review of Plant Physiology, 59, 313-339.
5. Steffens D., Hütsch B.W., Eschholz T., Lošák T. and Schubert S. (2005) Plant Soil and Environment, 51,545–552.
6. Thomson C.J., Atwell B.J. and Greenway H. (1989) Journal of experimental botany, 40, 993-999.
7. Biemelt S., Keetman U., Mock H.P. and Grimm B. (2000) Plant Cell and Environment, 23,135-140.
8. Gill S.S. and Tuteja N. (2010) Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 48, 909-930.
9. Arnon D.I. (1949) Plant physiology, 24, 1-15.
10. Heath R.L. and Packer L. (1968) Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, 125,189-198.
11. Bansal R. and Srivastava J.P. (2012) Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 34, 512-522.
12. Mukherjee S. P. and Choudhari M. A. (1983) Physiologia Planterum, 58, 116-170.
13. Patel P.K. and Hemantranjan A. (2012) American journal of Plant Physiology, 7 (4) 164-173.
14. Beers R.F. Jr. and Sizer I.W. (1952) Journal of Biological Chemistry, 195, (1)133-140.
15. Zua C., Fang Z.N. and Zeng G.W. (2000) Journal of Zhejiang University (Agriculture & Life Sciences, 26(2) 127-130.
16. Panse V. G. and Sukhatme P.V. (1967) ICAR publication, New Delhi, 38.
17. Kumutha D., Sairam R.K., Chinnusamy V. and Meena R.C. (2008) Plant Science, 175, 706-716.
18. Yordanova R.Y. and Popova L.P. (2001) Photosynthetica, 39(6), 515-520.
19. Ahmed S., Nawata E. and Sakuratani T. (2002) Plant production science, 5(2),117-123.
20. Cho J.W., Ji H.C. and Yamakava T. (2006) Journal of Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University, 51(2), 227-232.
21. Pociecha E., Koscielniak J. and Filek W. (2008) Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 30, 529-535.
22. Else M.A., Janowiak F., Atkinson C.J. and Jackson M.B. (2009) Annals of Botany, 103, 313-323.
23. Singh V.P. (2010) Ph.D. Thesis, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India, 86.
24. Dat J.F., Capelli N., Folzer H., Bourgeade P. and Badot P.M. (2004) Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 42(4), 273-282.
25. Noctor G. and Foyer C. H. (1998) Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology, 49, 249-279.
26. Yordanova R.Y., Alexieva V.S. and Popova L.P. (2003) Russian Journal of Plant Physiology, 50, 163-167.
27. Hossain Hsu, Y.M. Tseng M.J. and Lin C.H. (2009) Botanical Bulletin of Academia Sinica, 40, 193-198.
28. Kumutha D., Ezhilmathi K., Sairam R.K., Srivastava G.C., Deshmukh P.S., Meena R.C. (2009) Biologia Plantarum, 53, 75–84.
29. Singh V.P. (2010) Ph.D. Thesis, Banaras Hindu University,Varanasi, India, 86.
30. Tan W., Liu J., Dai T., Jing Q., Cao W. and Jiang D. (2008) Photosynthetica, 46(1), 21-27.
31. Yordanova R. Y., Christov K.N. and Popova L.P. (2004). Environmental and Experimental Botany, 51, 93–10.
32. Zhang G., Tanakamaru K., Abe J. and Morita S. (2007) Acta Physiologia Plantarum, 29(2), 171-176.